The above picture was taken by NeoGAF user nephilimdj in Target Edwardstown, South Australia, in the Castle Plaza shopping centre.

As you can see, all R18+ games have been placed in plain packaging with the warning "you must be 18 years or over" to purchase.

This is a rare sight in South Australia, rare enough that it was a surprise to many when it was posted — even those living in South Australia. Rare enough that, when we saw it, we contacted Target Australia directly to ask what was going on. Was this a Target policy at the South Australian state level? Was this something they did across all stores? Or was this one rogue store acting on their own impulses.

Target Australia responded with this statement:

The photo you sent to us is not company standard. The store in question took itself to action the display featured in the photo you provided. Target Australia complies with the relevant legislation in each state on the display of 18+ games. We have tracked down the store and this has now been corrected.

In short: this was not company policy. Target Edwardstown had been contacted and was asked to correct the situation.

We decided to speak to the Target store in question to ask why the games section had been altered in this way.

We were informed that the store had been inserting plain packaging into its video games as seen in the image above. We were also told that the store would continue doing this, because it is asked of them by South Australian legislation. The store representative confirmed this wasn't specific to video games — that Blu-rays and DVDs were being treated similarly.

We checked the legislation. In 2011 IGN Australia reported that plain packaging laws could be applied to video games in South Australia. The reality: this legislation had already been passed and put into place in January 2010 and was already applicable to video games.

Of course, in 2010 Australia didn't have an R18+ rating for video games. Australia's first R18+ game was released over three years later in 2013. When that happened it was assumed games would fall under the same state legislation in South Australia.

The applicable section reads as follows:

An occupier of premises (other than adult-only premises) at which computer games with a classification lower than R 18+ are sold must not display material for a computer game classified R 18+ at the premises—
(a) unless—
(i) the material is displayed in a different area (including, for example, in a different aisle or on a different shelving case, stand or table) from that in which material for other computer games is displayed; and
(ii) the area is marked as an area displaying material for computer games classified R 18+ by a notice complying with subsection (2) displayed in a prominent place near the area; and
(iii) the surface area of the material that is on display (for example, the cover of a casing containing the game, where that is on display) isnot more than 300 cm²; or
(b) unless, at all times while on display, the material bears no images or markings
other than—
(i) the name of the computer game in letters of 10 millimetres or less in height; and
(ii) the determined markings relevant to its classification

The key words in this section are "or" and "unless".

South Australian legislation requires only that stores do one or the other: they either create a marked R18+ specific section or they cover R18+ games as seen in the above image.

As you might expect, most stores opt for the simpler R18+ specific section, like this Big W store:

I used to think WA was bad, but SA have a lot to answer for. The men you're after are either Michael Atkinson, the SA Attorney-General who fought with such ferver against R18+, or Super Right-Wing Christian Man (aka Corey Bernadi), the South Australian Senator who equates being gay with buggering a dog, wants the taxpayer to fund religious education.

It was the old attorney general, Michael Atkinson, who blocked the R rating for so long.

But this particular bit of stupidity around the display of R rated games and films is actually the doing of the hilariously misnamed Family First party, although obviously it needed the state Labor government to pass the legislation.

We can blame Atkinson, but we can also blame Edwardstown Target. After all, according to Hans Kelsen's Reine Rechtslehre law cannot be law unless it is effective. A law that is ignored by most people and not enforced is effectively no law at all. If the evidence is that many stores do not comply with this law then Edwardstown Target is effectively digging not only its own grave but is dragging the other stores down with it :-)

@markserrels the 2 paragraphs just below the target logo have bit of duplication in em.

edit: never wanted to be that guy, but here we are.

edit #2: just reading the actual legislation in question & found this. s 62(1a):A person must not sell or deliver to a minor a computer game classified R 18+ unless
the person is a parent or guardian of the minor.
Maximum penalty: $5 000

pretty sure the commonwealth legislation (which overrides any state legislation) says you cant sell, give, or allow a minor to access R18+ stuff, regardless of your status as a guardian.

Point of Order: Cth Legislation isn't superior to State Legislation. Constitutionally speaking, the States have more power. Federal Legislation is only superior when the states have yielded this power (like the Australian Consumer Law). That's why WA are essentially an entity onto themselves, because they never give up anything!

The Courts, however, work this way (High Court, Federal Court are superior to State County, Magistrates Courts) - common law and precedent set by the higher court must be followed by the lower courts.

Actual Point of Order: Cth Legislation is indeed 'superior' to State Legislation. Whenever there is inconsistency, Cth legislation prevails and the state law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency: s109 of the Constitution - http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=6ED2CAE61E7742A1B2C42F95D4C05252&_z=z.

States typically do have more extensive powers of legislation however, as they retain the ability to legislate in relation to any matters not specifically provided for under the Constitution. In other words, the Cth can only legislate in relation to matters spelt out under the constitution, the states deal with anything left over: ss51-60 of the Constitution. As you say, the Cth can legislate in relation to matters outside those listed where the states pass legislation giving effect to the Cth code.

Fully prepared to be proven wrong about this, but as i understand it, based on s 109 of the Constitution:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

so if the federal level says you cant do something & a state law says you can, the state law is rendered invalid & the federal law is what applies.

so if the federal classification act says R18+ material is restricted to persons over 18 (distinct from the wording of the MA15+ category, which explicitly provides an exception for being in the company of a parent or guardian) and the SA legislation says that R18 stuff can be given to a kid by a parent / guardian, then the federal law overrules the state one.

Yes, you're right (refer my other response, above), my point was philosophical rather than practical, referring to the breadth of powers the State has, so I'm happy to yield to the Cth Legislation on this topic :P

I am actually in favour of this, actually - we hear it too often that parents go out & buy R18+ games for their kids without thinking about the rating at all. This policy would make them realise what they're buying.

To be fair, I think that it is rather effective. Those people old enough to legally make the purchase will likely know what they are after long before walking into the shop, the product being visible for casual browsing simply not factoring into their choice to buy it.
The 14yo child on the other hand going "mum buy me this game" will have a much more difficult time floating it past their parents when it has "R18+ DEFINITELY NOT FOR YOUNG CHILDREN" in huge letters which reminds me of the JB review on GTA5 not for kids, not for kids, seriously don't believe them this isn't for kids.

Again though, the laws existing are a different beast entirely from the laws being enforced. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to believe that a lot of employees of stores selling R18 games couldn't give two shits about the laws surrounding the sale, only that the sale is made. Not true of all employees, I have had conversations with many folks that do indeed adhere to the laws, even if it is only to flex their legal muscle to move groups of 13yo kids out of the store because they know they have no intention of buying anything.

Tobacco laws are different, they are actively enforced and stores audited, I don't believe that video games are there yet.

I've always hated going into EB and having to browse through the DS/Wii games with Euro style covers or replacement covers that just have the title in plain text on the spine rather than a logo like most of the local releases would have. Makes it so much harder to search through.

Its a load of shit. Games should have ratings but plain packaging? Parents should buy their kids GTA if their children are mentally sound its not going to change them. We all grew up playing vice city and the like, beating up hookers and running over pill symbols all the while saying outloud "i will NEVER do this, this is crazy" its complete rubbish protecting children from violence, if you're over 10-12 years old as long as your mentally healthy its FINE. Its the 17 year olds that get their first violent game that end up weird, obsessed when they should be out socializing.

Well, a parent is obliged to follow certain laws in this country, but they are *expected* to be exercising due diligence over what exactly their children are subjected to. It's societal, rather than something written in stone.

I think GTA - and a complicit games media/industry - have always wanted it both ways. Its own niche where it can be the biggest fish in the 'mature interactive entertainment' pond; but still marketed and available to the widest possible audience.

As you say, there's always going to be mums and dads or relatives who are going to enable such a game to fall into a 10-12 year old's hands.

That's a decision for the parents to make. There's nothing stopping you picking up (plain-packaged or not) GTA for your kid. However, your kid is not allowed to buy it from the store themselves, which is as it should be.
The problem is, stupid parents don't think and don't know. The plain packaging would make it absolutely clear to them without having to think, and it doing so they may learn something.

They should have to think, they should have an interest and it shouldn't be censored. Its a cover, it actually offends me that this is being justified as an okay thing. I dont think violence is something all young people can rationalize and understand in a media format but its a part of life. Knowing that bad things happen in this world is a fundamental and necessary part of becoming an adult, it might just be a game cover but it says a lot about society that we need the quick convenience of "this is bad"

I'm on your side with that, believe it or not.
Parents should have to think. The fact that the government thinks it has to 'nanny' us is backwards and offensive. The big problem is that to a certain degree and with a certain subset of people they are also right.
Just because parents should think, doesn't mean they do. And while the kids will most likely be able to handle it with no issue, it should be up to parents to make that decision.

It comes down to this: It's up to the parents, but the parents are oblivious. Therefore we need to educate the parents. Plain packaging is a very obvious way to show these parents something they wouldn't otherwise be considering.

Then again, these same parents aren't thinking so they'll probably just take it for granted that it's not for kids and they're still not learning anything. In short, I'm neither for nor against plain packaging, but I'm definitely against stupid parents.

Now, at the time, who was in the wrong? The store for selling something that clearly wasn't classified to be sold in this country, or me for buying it? Keep in mind this was well before R18+ was introduced.

Now for the kicker, at the time which states and territories deemed that it was illegal for simply owning the unclassified game?

I raise the above because you can't single out one state's interpretation/administering of the R18+ laws without talking about the fringe cases that now exist - Steam is the most bleeding obvious case here. But also the nuances of each and every other state/territory and how the stores apply the laws within their walls.

Playstation Network has also apparently been able to circumvent the laws and get games on its AU storefront without a rating first, I think? Or was that he Xbox One store? Both still have games delayed because of rating snafus. The Wii U eshop was supposed to receive a wellspring of content since Australia signed up to the IARC agreements, or so I thought.

We got OctoDad on there out of the blue (heh) without rhyme or reason, with no announcement or media reporting on it either. Very odd.

If devs simply are not aware of IARC, 2016 is almost to April, than that's a paddlin' surely. Who's to blame?

But back to brick and mortar stores, It all comes back to Australian games retail as a whole. There's the law, and then there's how the people working under that law choose to operate.

Now, at the time, who was in the wrong? The store for selling something that clearly wasn't classified to be sold in this country, or me for buying it? Keep in mind this was well before R18+ was introduced.It'd be the store, wouldn't it? Since it's illegal to sell unclassified material. Whereas if you bought it from a UK store, then it'd be you in the bad for importing unclassified material.

Now for the kicker, at the time which states and territories deemed that it was illegal for simply owning the unclassified game?Wait when did this happen? I thought it was only WA where it was illegal to possess unclassified material.

Edit: Actually, unsure if there's a distinction between unclassified and Refused Classification. Hmm.

Hey, as long as the standard packaging is behind that plain paper, then I am fine with this. Considering I know what games I want before I even get to the store, the cover only matters to me for being on my shelf.
We hear so many stories of parents buying games without even considering the actual rating that this would be a great way to curb that and get rid of that stigma. Heck, that was the main excuse people were making against the introduction of the R18+ rating in games.

I think the kind of parents you're talking about wouldn't bat an eyelid at a plain cover with a warning anyway. If you're not interested in what your child is buying to begin with how would a white cover with an r rating change that? Those are the kinds of parents that dont have an interest in their kids to begin with. Im an adult and I really dont appreciate the complacency of "as long as da normi cova is there" its complete rubbish! I want the experience of seeing it in the store and I want that for others. What a backwards step and no wonder they got told to change it back.

I think it's a great idea, but I'd like to see it taken one step further. Each plain package must feature a written description of the image featured on the actual cover. "Helmeted white male in body armour carries assault rifle while walking away from a big explosion..." That sort of thing.

But how would you tell them apart if they all had the same description? :P
Though if you were going to go that far, perhaps an explanation for the rating beyond the one or two word descriptors currently used.

Seriously, that headline.
I don't see how it's a shambles. The laws are pretty clear. Perhaps not policed, and perhaps one store made an extreme misinterpretation. But that headline is clickbait, pure and simple. I thought we'd be above that here.

I keep forgetting about the R section at JB - Every time I go to get a new game im in awe that they dont have it on the shelf... Until i wander around for a while and find the R 18 section with EVERYTHING any gamer is interested in lol

Seriously need to look at the laws because it seems anything with a bit of violence is R 18 these days!

Sorry @bjl not entirely correct. Cth also takes precedence where the relevant laws fall within one of the enumerated heads of power of section 51 of the constitution (eg defence, external affairs and so on)

Can't help but feel partly responsible about this when I sent an angry email to Michael Atkinson bemoaning the fact I could walk into a jb store and purchase Cannibal Holocaust on DVD but I couldn't legally buy Mortal Kombat 9 which didn't have fetus eating in it yet the former did. Weeks later this happened...

The only reason I can think that they went with option 2 is the surface area clause in option 1. They may have misinterpreted it to mean the total material on display, not the material per item which is what the law intends. As long as its surface area (per material) is below 300cm² it's fine. Standard disc cases that almost every game comes in these days, including the ones pictured, are 249cm² in surface area. It's legal in South Australia to display the covers for these games, just not giant posters advertising them.

It's still a silly law, but what Target is doing there isn't a requirement to comply with that law.

SA is a bit funny when it comes to ratings. They even override the national rating on occasion. The abysmal "Wild Wild West" Will Smith movie had both a PG and an M rating on the packaging because SA decided to be different (http://www.fishpond.com.au/Movies/Wild-Wild-West-Kenneth-Branagh/9325336003473)

I gotta admit...this type of extremity is sometimes needed. The more this particular photo floods the news feeds of parents and other forms of media, the more eyes will open to the less eye popping warnings. It's astonishing...I recall lining up at EB games way back when GTAV first came out. There was a middle aged lady in the line in front of me, purchasing GTAV. Contemplated asking her if she knew what she was buying...contemplated for a good 5 minutes actually because the two cashiers just so happen to get two separate customers trading in 20+ games each...and that shit takes forever. I did end up saying 'excuse me, I don't mean to be rude but are you buying that for someone under 18? It's got an R18 label'. She seemed startled responding telling me it was for her husband but she didn't notice the rating.

This is my local store, I just assumed that this was a fairly standard practice TBH.
I remember that the last R+18 game that I bought here that did not have this cover was GTA5 (PS4). It may have been an effort to counter complaining parents as well as legislation. The shelf is located right at the back, facing the wall. Its almost like they don't want it to exist.

So whats next plain packaging for R rated movies and adult films?
Makes browsing difficult, what if an adult was looking at these games and didn't actually know any of them how would said consumer know which to buy?

I don't understand the issue. Target contacting the store in question "correcting the issue", it's not an issue or anything to be ashamed of, but I guess they're still sore over the whole GTA5 bullshit.

I'm quite OK with cover replacement on the shelves. When I'm store browsing with my daughters (6-8), some of the R covers are a little graphic - Resident Evil Revs2 comes to mind, Zombie Army isn't hot either. Much like a smoker knows what they want in plain packaging, I know what game I'm after without the cover displayed. Hell, I'd even be happy with a simple list showing what's in store and the price to save walking around, looking at stock, but that's me....

Only logged in users may vote for comments!

Get Permalink

Trending Stories Right Now

Today, how you feel about panty shots can determine how you feel about anime as a whole. And it's not just panty shots. In the blockbuster anime Food Wars, women's clothes burst off their bodies when they taste an exquisite bite of steak. Skirts often don't cover the bottom halves of women's butts in Prison School. Breasts are regularly the first body part to enter a shot in Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?. In the West, the practice of lacing gratuitous sexuality -- and especially female sexuality -- into an anime is known as "fan service". Love it or hate it, anime studios have made a conscious effort to feature "fan service" in most of this year's Western-subbed anime titles.

Why buy games on day one any more? A newly planned set of updates for Final Fantasy 15 won't just fix bugs, they will add story cutscenes and improve the game's slow-paced 13th chapter by adding more powers to Noctis's repertoire.